Worst Consequences of Combat

Posted 26Aug18.

“What are the worst consequences of the combat?”

This question could be viewed as asking on either an individual level or on a larger scale (nations and/or cultures)… However, many of the consequences are similar.

In my opinion, there are several. Starting from the most obvious to most complex:

Loss of life.

This one is simple, but the impacts vary. Loss of one person effects the immediate family and social circle of just that one person. Loss of many people, however, can influence many different factors. Depending on the numbers lost in one event/battle/campaign the areas of change may include: public opinion of the conflict, production ability (agricultural and industrial), a lower birth rate for the next few decades, the ability to rebuild following the conflict, and the contributions to social and economic sustainability of the losing nation.

Loss of conflict.

This is a simple answer to any violence entered into by two parties. You get into a fight and lose, at best you walk away with bruises to your body and ego. A nation loses a conflict, at best they sustained a relatively slight dent in their manpower and territory. The worst case in either example is death or ceasing to exist as a nation, which is essentially the death of the state.

Power vacuum.

Wedged into the best and worse cases of the previous answer, I would have to say that any chaos within the formal government/leadership usually leads to really, really bad things for that particular nation or region in the short and long term. Looking at what took place in Iraq after the 2003 invasion might be an effective example of what happens when bad leaders are toppled… and it isn’t always a parade of unicorns – unless they are rabid, angry, and merrily impaling everyone in their path unicorns.

New conflicts.

See the above two points. Losing a war and having the remaining political and military leadership circulate among a nervous and angry populace is a recipe for disaster. How did the First World War start? Look at the conflicts which preceded it. How did the Second World War start? Look at the First World War’s conclusion. How did Afghanistan and Iraq start? Look at the plethora of reasons which support your political affiliation and look at the previous power struggles in the region.

Forgetting the conflict.

This is by far, the worst consequence of warfare. The gradual sinking into victory-infused apathy as the bill of the war (financial) and the emotional price (loss of life) fosters a distinct distaste for fighting future conflicts – as well as maintaining the forces which brought that victory. Governments and societies are disturbingly quick to declare all sorts of nonsense: “home by Christmas,” “the War to end all Wars,” “mission accomplished,” and whatnot – only to find that the dump of institutional knowledge as they make ridiculous cuts to personnel, when compounded by the storage/dismantling of the tools of war, proved to be a bit too much too soon.

We never seem to learn that lesson. While history is never perfect in repeating itself, certain patterns seem to emerge that are only obvious to historians, cynics, and realists. As time goes on, the conflicts of the past are either diluted to protect the progressively delicate sensibilities, distorted to fit a particular narrative or justification, or just plain forgotten for the next neat holder of attention.

Am I implying that every… single… conflict in the history of Mankind needs to be scrutinized and committed to memory? Yeah, no – there are very few things we as a species do well, and the two biggies are procreate and hate.

However, understanding why we fight may lead to a better understanding of how to either mitigate the worst consequences or fight with a purpose and focus that shortens the inevitable conflict with the least amount of damage to the infrastructure, regional powers, and people involved in the conflict.